Is Obama My Brother's Keeper, or Big Brother?
Ilan Wurman
Last Updated: 9/30/08 Section: Editorial
When I told a professor after the 2006 midterm elections that it was good that the Republicans lost, he disagreed, saying, "It's better to change the party from within." He thought they could reform while still a majority. I was not so sure at the time. When the Democrats are in power, it seems easier for Republicans to remember what their party stands for: limited government and individual freedom. With Democrats at the helm, the Republicans could once again distinguish themselves from the party of the welfare state.
Or at least that was the hope. The Republicans still haven't overcome their recent legacy as big-government conservatives; President Bush and Karl Rove's "majority-building" agenda, in which they co-opted liberal social issues such as health care (Medicare) and education (No Child Left Behind), has left Republicans wandering, unsure of where they should stand. Should they stand for limited government, or big government with a conservative sensibility?
What I told the professor in 2006, however, I would not repeat as readily today. An Obama presidency might have the revitalizing effect on Republicans many of us were hoping from the 2006 midterms. In the debate between the two presidential candidates this past Friday, however, both candidates acknowledged a fundamental difference on the role of government generally: Obama insisted on new programs and new spending, whereas McCain undeniably committed to lowering government spending.
McCain might just be the president to reinvigorate the Republican Party in spite of his record as a maverick; he is not the "different kind of Republican" or the "compassionate" kind (as if most of us aren't compassionate anyway) that President Bush represents. In the debate, McCain mentioned reining in spending about a dozen times. If he keeps saying it, maybe he'll really have to do it. I certainly hope his veto pen will be more firm than his predecessor's.
Obama's answers do not bode well for his presidency. He wants to keep taxes high on American businesses, although they are the second highest in the world; he wants what inevitably will become a federal health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of families; he wants more federal money for early childhood education, even though that issue has traditionally belonged to the states; he wants the federal government to help all kids go to college, though college is not for everyone and federal money tends to increase tuition. In general, Obama disagrees with the "philosophy that regulation is bad." While this position might seem attractive in the current financial crisis, as a rule more regulation hurts the economy.
In sum, Obama will be one of the most progressive presidents this country has seen in decades. Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of modern progressivism, believed the president should not shy away from government power; he believed that government should in fact be the primary - yes, you've heard this before - agent of social change. But when governments become agents of change, as Obama wants, that change does not guarantee "progress." As Reason's Damon Root has argued, under Wilson, the "Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism." For African-Americans, "the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation."
We should also remind ourselves that one of the great architects of progressive theory was Karl Marx. His ideas were progressive in that they were also utopian; he believed that man can change, and that state power could help achieve the desired changes. But as we saw, when utopian ideologues control the instruments of government, we get Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. That is not to say that modern liberals are racists or Marxists, but merely to point out the shared intellectual roots of modern progressivism and the more dangerous ideologies of the last century.
Listening to Obama's nomination acceptance speech the night of August 28, one phrase in particular struck me: "Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity…for every American who's willing to work. That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."
On its face, I completely agree with Obama's statement. After all, his political rhetoric is so vague that it's hard not to find something agreeable. (In his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell famously said that in our time "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible," and so political language must consist "largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness." I do not believe that Obama's policy positions are indefensible in the sense that the gulags and communist purges were, but one cannot help but recall Orwell's warnings.) I agree with Obama that our government should work for us and not against us, but it should do so by securing our rights. And I too see myself as my brother's keeper; the distinction is that I will always take full responsibility, whereas Obama wants the government to be the responsible party.
Perhaps the liberals don't see the irony that what Obama wants is to be Big Brother. Isn't that the same Big Brother they see and hate in President Bush? Well, no - it's worse. While the Bush Administration may wiretap certain American citizens who contact foreigners overseas in order to protect us, what Obama proposes - and what the liberals have pursued for decades - is to control more and more of our every day lives.
Obama and the progressives want to use government power to take away people's money and use it for social engineering. They want to use government power to change the very way people think. They want to use government power to erode people's freedom to choose between health care providers and how to invest in their retirement. They want to subject workers to union bullies and strip them of their right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize. They want to tell us what to eat and where to go to school.
In George W. Bush's America - which, as a conservative, I believe is far from perfect - the government in general restricts only a limited number of rights for a limited number of people in the interest of national security. But what Obama and the Democrats propose is the wholesale restriction of everyday choices. When the government becomes my brother's keeper, it can be nothing but Big Brother.
Or at least that was the hope. The Republicans still haven't overcome their recent legacy as big-government conservatives; President Bush and Karl Rove's "majority-building" agenda, in which they co-opted liberal social issues such as health care (Medicare) and education (No Child Left Behind), has left Republicans wandering, unsure of where they should stand. Should they stand for limited government, or big government with a conservative sensibility?
What I told the professor in 2006, however, I would not repeat as readily today. An Obama presidency might have the revitalizing effect on Republicans many of us were hoping from the 2006 midterms. In the debate between the two presidential candidates this past Friday, however, both candidates acknowledged a fundamental difference on the role of government generally: Obama insisted on new programs and new spending, whereas McCain undeniably committed to lowering government spending.
McCain might just be the president to reinvigorate the Republican Party in spite of his record as a maverick; he is not the "different kind of Republican" or the "compassionate" kind (as if most of us aren't compassionate anyway) that President Bush represents. In the debate, McCain mentioned reining in spending about a dozen times. If he keeps saying it, maybe he'll really have to do it. I certainly hope his veto pen will be more firm than his predecessor's.
Obama's answers do not bode well for his presidency. He wants to keep taxes high on American businesses, although they are the second highest in the world; he wants what inevitably will become a federal health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of families; he wants more federal money for early childhood education, even though that issue has traditionally belonged to the states; he wants the federal government to help all kids go to college, though college is not for everyone and federal money tends to increase tuition. In general, Obama disagrees with the "philosophy that regulation is bad." While this position might seem attractive in the current financial crisis, as a rule more regulation hurts the economy.
In sum, Obama will be one of the most progressive presidents this country has seen in decades. Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of modern progressivism, believed the president should not shy away from government power; he believed that government should in fact be the primary - yes, you've heard this before - agent of social change. But when governments become agents of change, as Obama wants, that change does not guarantee "progress." As Reason's Damon Root has argued, under Wilson, the "Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism." For African-Americans, "the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation."
We should also remind ourselves that one of the great architects of progressive theory was Karl Marx. His ideas were progressive in that they were also utopian; he believed that man can change, and that state power could help achieve the desired changes. But as we saw, when utopian ideologues control the instruments of government, we get Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. That is not to say that modern liberals are racists or Marxists, but merely to point out the shared intellectual roots of modern progressivism and the more dangerous ideologies of the last century.
Listening to Obama's nomination acceptance speech the night of August 28, one phrase in particular struck me: "Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity…for every American who's willing to work. That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."
On its face, I completely agree with Obama's statement. After all, his political rhetoric is so vague that it's hard not to find something agreeable. (In his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell famously said that in our time "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible," and so political language must consist "largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness." I do not believe that Obama's policy positions are indefensible in the sense that the gulags and communist purges were, but one cannot help but recall Orwell's warnings.) I agree with Obama that our government should work for us and not against us, but it should do so by securing our rights. And I too see myself as my brother's keeper; the distinction is that I will always take full responsibility, whereas Obama wants the government to be the responsible party.
Perhaps the liberals don't see the irony that what Obama wants is to be Big Brother. Isn't that the same Big Brother they see and hate in President Bush? Well, no - it's worse. While the Bush Administration may wiretap certain American citizens who contact foreigners overseas in order to protect us, what Obama proposes - and what the liberals have pursued for decades - is to control more and more of our every day lives.
Obama and the progressives want to use government power to take away people's money and use it for social engineering. They want to use government power to change the very way people think. They want to use government power to erode people's freedom to choose between health care providers and how to invest in their retirement. They want to subject workers to union bullies and strip them of their right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize. They want to tell us what to eat and where to go to school.
In George W. Bush's America - which, as a conservative, I believe is far from perfect - the government in general restricts only a limited number of rights for a limited number of people in the interest of national security. But what Obama and the Democrats propose is the wholesale restriction of everyday choices. When the government becomes my brother's keeper, it can be nothing but Big Brother.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
women seeking men
posted 4/02/10 @ 10:16 PM PST
Thanks to author! I like articles like this about title , very interesting.
Post a Comment